kyledavid80

"They may be articulate-- they use vocabulary and complex sentence structures in their speech-- but the substance isn't there; this is also known as bullsh**ing"

Ah, yes, I've heard this quite a bit -- style over substance; Orwell describes this dichotomy in his "Politics and the English Language." But I know of many people who are articulate/eloquent/all that jazz and who put much substance into their statements and arguments.

I still maintain that it's possible to be mediocre in math yet show a strong sense of intelligence, critical thinking, and overall brilliance.

I used to think that I could get through any math without too much difficulty -- but that was during a period of time when I hadn't experienced much difficulty. I've since realized that even in higher math like calculus, I still come across things that I have difficulty grasping. As stupid as this may make me seem, before, I had difficulty understanding radians and it seriously hindered my ability to complete most of the work from the chapter. I could do certain operations that we learned in the chapter, mainly by mechanical memorization of steps instead of a knowledge of the deep structure of what I was doing. Why did I have such difficulty? Because I had preconceptions about radians and associated concepts that conflicted with what I was learning; I didn't realize it at the time, and generally, people don't realize that their own knowledge/assumptions are often the root of their inability to process new data.

In addition, there are certain things that make people "hate" math. For me, it's making repeated mistakes (though I generally like math, just not certain parts). I usually get the material, but I may make constant mistakes. Perfect example: multiplying two matrices. Not the kind where you multiply each entry, but the kind where you have to multiply each entry in each row of the first matrix by each entry in each column of the second matrix, adding them together, etc. I abhor doing that, simply because my brain has difficulty "shifting" one matrix to multiply it with the other. To this day, it can take me a minute or two to multiply two (large) matrices.

At any rate, while I do think that competency in math is highly correlated with intelligence and that it and language constitute the main functions of the brain, I do not think that difficulty with higher math means that a person has difficulty with "higher levels of thought," nor do I think that a math wiz is obviously intelligent, or that hating or disliking math is any sort of reflection of one's abilities or character.

theghostofsnappy

Buddy, for all intents and purposes I have a degree in mathematics (never took algebra), with courses including measure theory and graduate level matrix analysis, and was a good candidate for a solid PhD program in mathematics, had I chosen to take that route. You're not impressing anybody, and certainly not fooling me. A mathematical proof is nothing more than the logical demonstration of a conclusion drawn on a proposed set of axioms. Logic is at the heart of mathematics. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand mathematics. End of story. You're just another self-impressed math major. *Yawn*

Cronus88

SergioValencia, you're being really unclear. you're not really saying WHY you believe that individuals who are really good at math and understand it are smarter and more intelligent than those who dont grasp it very well, yet have excellent communication skills and can write papers and understand the "arts". its just strange that you're saying all this yet not once have you explained yourself...

you mentioned some philosophers earlier, so lets use one as an example. Take John Locke, one of the most famous philosophers of all time. lets compare him against Issac Newton, one of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived. now im sure you would agree that Newton understood math very well? and was good at it? now to look at John Locke. he was surely less knowledgeable in the subject of mathematics than Newton( on account of he wasn't a mathematician and Newton obviously was) yet he wrote "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"(along with other papers) and im sure if you've ever read any of it, you'd agree that he was a very very intelligent man, who could communicate his thoughts in a very clear, logical, and precise manner. the founding fathers of this country were all influenced by him and were true Lockeans at heart. his principles are underlying this government system that we live in today.

now i would say that both of these men were extremely intelligent in their own ways. but according to your logic in ur posts that ive read, you would conclude that although Locke is intelligent he is LESS intelligent than Newton, just because he wasnt as good at math as Newton was, and therefore incapable of "higher level thought". this is absurd to think that John Locke was incapable of higher level thought, as his thoughts were extremely complex in thinking about society and the world around him. (all you have to do is read a little of what he writes)

i just want you to explain clearly why you think that Newton would be more intelligent that Locke. because it just doesnt make much sense to me.

JG863

Is it not more appropriate to answer the original question?

Are there any high-paying majors that require no math?

Everyone here sounds intelligent. Please use this talent to answer the question.

renix

Sergio is full of it IMO, fwiw.

Varsev

Here's a little something from Wikipedia.

Left Brain Functions : linear algorithmic processing, concrete-oriented, mathematics: quantity - perception of counting/measurement, present and past, language: grammar/words, pattern perception

Right Brain: pattern perception holistical algorithmic processing, abstract-oriented, mathematics: quality - perception of shapes/motions, present and future, language: intonation/emphasis, spatial perception

paying3tuitions

OP, I'm skipping over every idea batted around in the posts between yours and mine b/c I am a strong proponent of multiple intelligence theory that adds to the list of types of intelligence the following: musical, artistic, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal.

If these are your strengths, they relate to careers.

Law was a good example, although surely to get good LSAT scores you should be adept at reasoning.

International Relations requires the ability to understand different cultures, languages, and have people skills.

I don't know if you consider psychology or education lucrative, but within those professions anything to do with Special Education pays higher than regular education. Some people get up there in salaries doing Educational Policy Reform but as a teacher I think it's crazy-b.s. that gives me a massive headache. But the problems are there to solve, that's for sure. You could get an Ed.D (like Bill Cosby!!) and work for some wonky policy think-tank in the federal government to solve educational dilemmas.

IF you have patience and interpersonal skill (your postings don't indicate it, however) then within education a higher paying choice than teaching is Speech Language Pathology.

Geriatric Studies is possibly going to be lucrative because of the baby boom surge into the land of frail-elderly. It's a new interdisciplinary major (Ithaca College, for example).

4321234

hmm... the job market seems to favor math more than anything. i think it'd be really difficult to major in something that doesn't require math and to make as much money as an engineer right when you graduate.

matrixrebloated

way to go severely off-topic guys...you all really don't have any higher order thinking

Anyway, law and political fields, as stated earlier, require no math

charizardpal

But I want to use my large cranium and teaching special ed doesn't do that....I also don't particularly enjoy helping people, as with medicine. (Economics is a ruling factor of my life!) Considering that my main desire is something with money that uses math, could I get a 2nd opinion?

Atlmom

Most colleges require a basic level of math....through pre cal if not cal. You might exempt out if you take the SAT II. might be too late. I for one learned math IN COLLEGE. Now I love it... So don't sell yourself short. If you get a good teacher in college, they can sometimes turn that light on.

badman89

You have raised an excellent point; the easiest way to prove to someone a lack of interest in mathematics does not imply a lack of intelligent is with clear examples.

SergioValencia,

1. Let us consider first a Greek Philosopher. You allude to Greek Philosophers as being "first and foremost good mathematicians" yet the man who I consider to be not only the greatest of the ancient Greek Philosophers but also one of the greatest intellectuals the world has ever seen, the man who single handedly forged the study of formal logic - Aristotle - demonstrated absolutely no interest in Mathematics.

2. Charles Darwin, the co-architect (oftentimes credited as the sole architect) of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, has completely changed the way we look at the world around us. I would have to put in a great deal of effort to find a man who does not consider Darwin to be extremely intelligent, unless of course I was at a Southern Baptist Convention! Surprisingly (?) Darwin was quite apathetic towards Mathematics. Shock! Horror!

I could go on listing intelligent people lacking an interest in mathematics, but I think you get the point.

African genius

Actually, Finance and Accounting are the # paying majors in college, therefore the answer to yuor question is basically, No.

b@r!um

Pretty much any field out there has a number of very lucrative jobs. The actual question is whether or not you are talented and determined enough to make it to the very top in whatever occupation you choose to pursue.

Since quantitative jobs are off the table, how outstanding are your communication skills? You could look into public relations, marketing, advertisement, etc.

b@r!um

Who decided to dig up a 2-year-old thread anyway?